At another board, I posted what I believed to be the gist of the author's argument, or peacegirl's argument. It's not quite clear how much of this argument is Lessans' and how much is hers. Her reaction there was hostile and defensive, so I broke off discussion. In any event, I believe this IS the correct argument, the explanation of the so-called "two-sided equation." (I have read the first two chapter of the book, and other chapters besides.) And note that many times, peacegirl has demanded that others explain what "the two-sided equation" is, but never once, in my experience, has she herself explained it in her own words. Here is hers/Lessans' argument formalized: .I think you've pretty well nailed it, but I am eagerly waiting for Janis' vitriolic response. Just curious, which other chapters have you read, I actually read all of them including ch. 10, the chapter about reincarnation that isn't reincarnation. I have everything except ch. 10 as a PDF on my computer.
influenced by that scale of physics. As I've stated earlier I think "free will" is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.While I agree with you that the whole "free will " debate is primarily religiously motivated, I'm curious to know what you mean by "free will" being an oxymoron. Strictly, an oxymoron is not a self-contradiction, as many have come to interpret it. It's two opposite words or terms that when joined together, create a new meaning.
At another board, I posted what I believed to be the gist of the author's argument, or peacegirl's argument. It's not quite clear how much of this argument is Lessans' and how much is hers. Her reaction there was hostile and defensive, so I broke off discussion. In any event, I believe this IS the correct argument, the explanation of the so-called "two-sided equation." (I have read the first two chapter of the book, and other chapters besides.) And note that many times, peacegirl has demanded that others explain what "the two-sided equation" is, but never once, in my experience, has she herself explained it in her own words. Here is hers/Lessans' argument formalized: .I think you've pretty well nailed it, but I am eagerly waiting for Janis' vitriolic response. Just curious, which other chapters have you read, I actually read all of them including ch. 10, the chapter about reincarnation that isn't reincarnation. I have everything except ch. 10 as a PDF on my computer. Yes, I read chapter 10, and pointed out to peacegirl years ago that she had supporters of chapter 10 in Tom Clark at naturalism.org and Wayne Stewart at his Metaphysics by Default Web site. I assured her that since Lessans thought of it first, he gets the full "credit" for the claims in the chapter, but that Stewart and Clark argue the same thing that Lessans did. I even encouraged her to send chapter 10 to both Clark and Stewart. Needless to say, she threw a tantrum. She no more wants supporters than she wants opponents. I don't know what she wants.
influenced by that scale of physics. As I've stated earlier I think "free will" is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.While I agree with you that the whole "free will " debate is primarily religiously motivated, I'm curious to know what you mean by "free will" being an oxymoron. Strictly, an oxymoron is not a self-contradiction, as many have come to interpret it. It's two opposite words or terms that when joined together, create a new meaning. You are right, "free will" is a phrase made of two words of opposite meaning that has come to have many meanings.
influenced by that scale of physics. As I've stated earlier I think "free will" is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.While I agree with you that the whole "free will " debate is primarily religiously motivated, I'm curious to know what you mean by "free will" being an oxymoron. Strictly, an oxymoron is not a self-contradiction, as many have come to interpret it. It's two opposite words or terms that when joined together, create a new meaning. You are right, "free will" is a phrase made of two words of opposite meaning that has come to have many meanings. So what meaning do you think it has, if any?
Needless to say, she threw a tantrum. She no more wants supporters than she wants opponents. I don't know what she wants.From my experience, I would say that Janis does want opponents, so that she can play the martyr for her fathers cause. Many times I have tried to tell her that her fathers book was a joke and I believe he know that, but was playing it straight just to see what she would do. Unfortunately he died before he could set her straight, and now she is carrying on with her delusion.
Janis, how long would it take for a person on earth to see the newly ignited Sun? Assuming you could turn the Sun off, and then turn it back on after a long enough period of time for the earth to get dark, but not so long that it would cool down.
At another board, I posted what I believed to be the gist of the author's argument, or peacegirl's argument. It's not quite clear how much of this argument is Lessans' and how much is hers. Her reaction there was hostile and defensive, so I broke off discussion. In any event, I believe this IS the correct argument, the explanation of the so-called "two-sided equation." (I have read the first two chapter of the book, and other chapters besides.) And note that many times, peacegirl has demanded that others explain what "the two-sided equation" is, but never once, in my experience, has she herself explained it in her own words. Here is hers/Lessans' argument formalized: .I think you've pretty well nailed it, but I am eagerly waiting for Janis' vitriolic response. Just curious, which other chapters have you read, I actually read all of them including ch. 10, the chapter about reincarnation that isn't reincarnation. I have everything except ch. 10 as a PDF on my computer. Yes, I read chapter 10, and pointed out to peacegirl years ago that she had supporters of chapter 10 in Tom Clark at naturalism.org and Wayne Stewart at his Metaphysics by Default Web site. I assured her that since Lessans thought of it first, he gets the full "credit" for the claims in the chapter, but that Stewart and Clark argue the same thing that Lessans did. I even encouraged her to send chapter 10 to both Clark and Stewart. Needless to say, she threw a tantrum. She no more wants supporters than she wants opponents. I don't know what she wants. How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.
influenced by that scale of physics. As I've stated earlier I think "free will" is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.While I agree with you that the whole "free will " debate is primarily religiously motivated, I'm curious to know what you mean by "free will" being an oxymoron. Strictly, an oxymoron is not a self-contradiction, as many have come to interpret it. It's two opposite words or terms that when joined together, create a new meaning. You are right, "free will" is a phrase made of two words of opposite meaning that has come to have many meanings. So what meaning do you think it has, if any? In the circles I travel in, it would mostly mean intentional agency to a self directed goal.
How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.Gosh peacegirl, we told you a long time ago that on the internet there is no place to hide. Everybody can see just how crazy you've been over the last decade.
influenced by that scale of physics. As I've stated earlier I think "free will" is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.While I agree with you that the whole "free will " debate is primarily religiously motivated, I'm curious to know what you mean by "free will" being an oxymoron. Strictly, an oxymoron is not a self-contradiction, as many have come to interpret it. It's two opposite words or terms that when joined together, create a new meaning. You are right, "free will" is a phrase made of two words of opposite meaning that has come to have many meanings. So what meaning do you think it has, if any? In the circles I travel in, it would mostly mean intentional agency to a self directed goal. So you would agree we have free will in some relevant sense, the religious blather aside?
How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.Gosh peacegirl, we told you a long time ago that on the internet there is no place to hide. Everybody can see just how crazy you've been over the last decade. Seems to me we have an unpleasant troll following peacegirl around trying to upset her for his pleasure. That's sick, sad and hopefully against the rules here. Also peacegirl does not appear to be crazy she understandably sees what a problem belief in CCFW is. She tries to do something about it in a decent way.
For the Monte Carlo algorithm, pseudo random numbers have been shown to work well if they behave correctly statistically.OK, that's clear.
I've stated before that I think that "free will" is an oxymoron invented by the church.OK, I agree with that.
In Computer Science circles it is yet another human attribute to be mechanized.But that makes no sense, not together with your previous remark. On one side you say it is an oxymoron, and on the other side you say that is an attribute that can be mechanised. It is one of them, it cannot be both: except when you mean different kinds of free will. Isn't that exactly the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will? So I do not see why we need some 'hole in determinism' to mechanise free will if a pseudo random generator suffices.
How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.Why don't you quite assuming who I am and deal with the formalization of your father's argument I posted? What is wrong with it? If there is anything wrong with it, quit whining for a change and point out what's wrong. If there's nothing wrong with it, then let's discuss each premise in its turn, to see whether they are true or false. Of course you don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't unthinkingly agree with everything you and Lessans say. You've proved that for over a decade; unfortunately, during all that time, you've never found a single disciple. Maybe you should consider that there is something wrong with the message, rather than those who receive it.
Peacegirl,
Don’t feed the trolls and don’t let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. 
If we agree on independent agency towards a self directed goal, as the meaning of “free will” then yes. But at that point we have a pot of rock soup.
Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)peacegirl is doomed. She has no free will.
How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.Gosh peacegirl, we told you a long time ago that on the internet there is no place to hide. Everybody can see just how crazy you've been over the last decade. Seems to me we have an unpleasant troll following peacegirl around trying to upset her for his pleasure. That's sick, sad and hopefully against the rules here. Also peacegirl does not appear to be crazy she understandably sees what a problem belief in CCFW is. She tries to do something about it in a decent way. Actually, while I've had my disagreements with N.A. on another forum in the past, it seems to me he has already added a great deal of meat to an otherwise torpid discussion. Maybe you should read some of his posts and the excellent links that he has already provided in the short time that he has been here, rather than acting like a condescending, entitled prima donna, in the manner of GdF, who fortunately seems to be improving a little right now.
If we agree on independent agency towards a self directed goal, as the meaning of "free will" then yes. But at that point we have a pot of rock soup.Well, if we agree -- and I do -- that free will means independent agency toward a self-directed goal, it seems we agree on what free will is. But what do you mean that at that point, we have a pot of rock soup? BTW, to forum admins: There seems to be a bit of a software glitch, or poor design, such that when you log in and hit the quote button to quote another poster, it takes you back to the very beginning of the thread, and you have to then navigate to the latest page. Not that big a deal, but mildly irritating and easily fixable.
But that makes no sense, not together with your previous remark. On one side you say it is an oxymoron, and on the other side you say that is an attribute that can be mechanised. It is one of them, it cannot be both: except when you mean different kinds of free will. Isn't that exactly the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will? So I do not see why we need some 'hole in determinism' to mechanise free will if a pseudo random generator suffices.As Pec pointed out, "free will" is an oxymoron. Doesn't mean that it is not a term for one or more ideas. Be that as it may, whatever you want to call human agency, in as much as it exists it is a proof of concept for the mechanization of that property if you accept that humans are machines. And even if humans are not machines, this human capacity such as it is, is a goal to work towards even if only in mechanical approximation. That is one of the goals of the AI community. I really don't care about libertarian vs compatibilist free will. I only care about human agency as it exists in the wild.